WP: According to common perception, a revolution
was initiated in Poland in 1989 with historical significance and global
consequences. There is copious evidence that this allegedly anti-communist
revolt, which swept through Eastern Europe , was indeed planned by Soviet
secret services and served the long-term strategy of perestroika. In
Poland ‘s case the deception was facilitated by a secret agreement
between the communist party, leaders of the Solidarity movement and
the Catholic hierarchy – and we still see the consequences of
this arrangement. What is your opinion of the Eastern European revolutions?
Is it reasonable to claim that the Eastern part of the continent was
truly freed then?

Olavo de Carvalho: No, Eastern Europe was not truly
freed. But a fake liberation can easily be turned into a genuine one
if the secret manipulators are exposed and their power is transferred
to the hands of true patriots in due time . The time is now.

WP: Another small incident took place in August
1991 in Moscow. Bearing in mind the subsequent reign of Boris Yeltsin
and Vladimir Putin, are we dealing with the continuation of Soviet communism
or with a process of genuine democratisation? How did the changes in
Soviet Union in the last 17 years influence international political
scene?

Olavo de Carvalho: Would you believe that the Nazi
regime was truly defeated if at the end of World War II all the chieftains
of the Gestapo remained in their places, undisturbed by criminal investigations
and as powerful as they were before? The soviet state, the KGB and the
Russian Mafia are one and the same entity. The changes in the former
USSR were mostly a smokescreen designed to dupe the Western public opinion
and to dismantle any international anti-communist resistance. Needless
to say that the operation has been extremely successful.

WP: In the face of the revolutionary changes happening
in South America, should we speak of a rebirth of Marxism or is it merely
a continuation of old trends, ever present on that continent in the
twentieth century? Is the old idea of convergence between the socialist
and capitalist systems taking a new shape in the South American continent
or is it a completely new phenomenon?

Olavo de Carvalho: Socialism as an economic system
is a myth. Ludwig von Mises demonstrated, more than eighty years ago,
that under a socialist veil there remains always a market economy in
disguise. Socialism exists only as a “movement”, as a permanent
thrust for subversion and destruction. As such, it cannot survive without
the help it receives from big capitalists, or rather from the ones I
call metacapitalists – the macro-investors that were made so stunningly
rich by the capitalist game that they somehow transcend it and do not
accept the risks of a free market anymore. They then try to consolidate
their power as an oligarchy of political controllers. To this end they
use socialist subversion as their tool, and at the same time the socialist
leadership tries to use them as its tool. The so-called “convergence”
between socialism and capitalism is just a new ornamental denomination
for an old reality. Please read “The Best Enemy Money Can Buy”
by Anthony Sutton. Socialism is opposed to genuine free-market economy
(as well as to Christian civilizational values that sustain it), but
not to monopolistic and globalist capitalism. The main supporters of
the socialist subversion in Latin America are the American billionaire
foundations (Ford, Rockefeller, Soros) and the radical chic elite of
the American Democratic Party.

WP: What in your view are the consequences of
the emerging economic and military might of the communist China?

Olavo de Carvalho: It was perhaps some communist strategic
genius who persuaded Western investors that liberalizing the Chinese
economy would make the political regime to liberalize sooner or later.
Every smart communist knows that communism as an economic system does
not exist and will never exist, that it is only an ideological device
intended to keep alive the leftist revolutionary movement and communist
governments. The Chinese generals are smart communists.

They know that even though socialist economy is incapable of surviving,
socialism as a movement and as accumulation of political power can not
only survive but prosper indefinitely through the simple trick of being
a parasite to capitalism. The current Chinese economic system is a sort
of organized summary of this knowledge, which by the way is not knew.
Nazi-fascist economy was already based upon it, as it strived to keep
a working market economy under state surveillance, sucking the resources
thus created to feed the unlimited growth of the one party and of the
state it created. A very similar scheme is being implemented in Brazil
today: the generous opening of the economy to foreign investors, simulating
the abandonment of the old socialist plans, contributes at the same
time to consolidate a highly centralized political system, in which
a group of leftist parties is increasingly eliminating all possibility
of opposition.

WP:Later this year, some of us will commiserate
the ninetieth anniversary of the Bolshevik revolution. Do you believe
that communism is dead and buried (which seems to be the generally accepted
view)? Or do you believe that the Bolshevik’s heritage is still
playing a strong part in political practice today?

Olavo de Carvalho: Communism as a movement is more
alive than ever. As Anatolyi Golytsin well noted, there was a moment
in history when the international interests of the USSR came into conflict
with the impulse to further growth of the international revolutionary
movement. This conflict reached a point of rupture when it was necessary
to decide, to sacrifice the structure in favor of growth. It is not
a coincidence that right after the collapse of the USSR the communist
movement grew so fast to the point of creating a worldwide anti-American
siege – a Leninist dream that up to then had not been possible
to put into practice. To me it seems clear that the work of the KGB
through “active measures” abroad was much intensified precisely
since the beginning of the 1990's, exploring the widespread illusion
according to which the end of the USSR meant the end of communist subversion.
Lenin had prepared an expansion plan for the communist movement which,
in certain moments, seemed unachievable. He imagined that, starting
from Moscow , communist expansion should first reach Eastern Europe,
then turn back to Asia, move in the direction of Africa and, from there,
reach Latin America , thus completing the siege around the US and its
allies in Western Europe. There remains no doubt today that this course
has been run, that the siege is set. And its last chapter achieved success
precisely in the decade that followed the “end of the USSR”.
It is no coincidence that, in the leftist overtaking of Latin America,
drug-trafficking organizations have played such a fundamental role.
They are the financial and paramilitary base of the Sao Paulo Forum,
the strategic center of Latin American Communism, which gathers around
common plans and interests over a hundred legal leftist parties alongside
criminal organizations such as the FARC and the Chilean MIR. If in light
of these facts we reread today the book by Joseph Douglass Red Cocaine
– The Drugging of American and the West (London , 1990),
we realize the notable acumen of Soviet strategists who, already in
the 50's, were planning the use of drug-trafficking as a local source
of support for revolutionary movements in Latin America. It is rather
understandable that these plans could only have been more fully fulfilled
after the “end” of the USSR , as before they were hindered
by diplomatic commitments. At the same time, the dissolution of the
USSR made possible deep changes in the structure of the world revolutionary
movement, which provided it with an extraordinary and renewed mobility.
The ancient monolithic hierarchic organization was replaced by a horizontal
articulation in “networks”, which in less than 24 hours
can be mobilized via the Internet for mass action anywhere in the world.
The old concern with doctrinal unity gave way to an apparent pluralistic
confusion which, disregarding merely theoretical divergences, preserves
the strategic unity among thousands of ideologically diverse organizations.
In brief, the dissolution of the Soviet imperial structure enabled an
expansion of the communist movement, because it was designed precisely
for this purpose. Within the alchemic alternation of dissolution and
coagulation that dialectically guides communist strategy, the expansive
dissolution will be followed, sooner or later, by a new hierarchical
coagulation, but this time in a worldwide scale.

WP:Józef Mackiewicz, a great Polish writer
and anti-communist thinker, wrote in 1962 “Great is the capacity
of human nature to adapt to circumstances. Yet political realism ought
not to deprive people of their imagination because it will cease to
be realistic. A comparison of customs and manners prevailing in the
world in 1912 with those of today, can give us a measure, although only
in approximate terms, of what we could “reasonably” expect
to have to accept in year 2012!” What is your point of view in
this matter? What do the next five years have in store for us?

Olavo de Carvalho: If we apply Mackiewicz’s
observation to the analysis o f American foreign policy, we will see
that it has an outstanding prophetical accuracy. The school of the so-called
“realism”, inaugurated by Hans J. Morgenthau (Politics
Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, Fifth Edition,
Revised, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1978), persuaded American strategists
that the power game in the world was a drama whose characters were essentially
Nations States. From this perception resulted the so-called “policy
of containment” which, directed exclusively by the timid idea
of containing Soviet military expansion to a reasonable area, gave up
the fight against Communism as an international movement. At the same
time, Communist parties quickly absorbed the strategic conception of
Antonio Gramsci which, favoring an informal expansion under the guise
of pluralism, turned the growth of Communism invisible to the eyes of
the ruling American elite. The latter even came to support this expansion
as it considered the “democratic left” in the Third World
as an alternative to Communism, without knowing that, from the Gramscian
viewpoint, the “democratic left” was exactly the preferred
instrument for camouflaged expansion.